Newspapers (Credit: PublicDomainPictures.net)
The UK Sunday Times reported in April 2017 that the man who last year attacked people on Westminster Bridge in London with a knife and his car, Khalid Masood, was linked to the Luton Islamic Centre mosque and that the mosque published “extreme” material. That same article reported that Farasat Latif, the director of school where Masood taught and secretary of the mosque, told the Times‘ reporter to “piss off.”
For that article, the newspaper’s reporter went to Latif’s home and attempted to interview him, ultimately having the door shut on him and leaving a note with the newspaper’s questions. Latif then complained to the UK press regulator the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the newspaper harassed him and invaded his privacy. Further, Latif admitted he said “piss off,” but said it wasn’t in response to the reporter’s questions but rather the reporter’s behavior.
The newspaper defended its attempt to talk to Latif as in the public interest. And, to back up its reporter’s actions, the newspaper provided an audio recording of the interaction. Because of that recording, IPSO ruled the newspaper’s attempt to get comment at Latif’s house wasn’t harassment or an invasion of privacy because the reporter was calm, the incident was brief, and the article didn’t include any private information.
“Reporters are entitled to approach individuals for comment at their homes as long as they do so in accordance with the requirements of the Code; indeed making such approaches is a routine part of the newsgathering process. In this case, the approach was made in order to obtain the complainant’s comment on the serious allegation that Mr Massood had connections with the Luton Islamic Centre mosque,” IPSO ruled.
The recording also proved that Latif did say “piss off” and that the article accurately reported on it, IPSO found. As such Latif’s complaint was rejected in full.
iMediaEthics spoke with Latif, who criticized IPSO as a “toothless tiger” and “not a proper body to regulate the print media.”
“Ordinary citizens who don’t have the means to take the matter to court” end up “unable to challenge the media,” he argued, calling for a stronger press regulator for print media. Latif called for IPSO to be “replaced by a body with proper powers in order to hold the media to account when they report inaccurately or in my case, harass members of the public to get a story.” Specifically, Latif pointed to the UK broadcast regulator OfCom, which has the power to fine and take away licenses. iMediaEthics has written to IPSO for its response to this criticism; an IPSO spokesperson said, “We’d prefer to let our ruling speak for itself.”
Latif disagreed with IPSO’s conclusion that the Times recording vindicated the paper, instead saying he thought it proved his complaint of harassment. He said he was “disappointed and quite surprised that they didn’t uphold my complaint given that the Sunday Times actually very kindly released the audio, and the transcript of the audio is on the website and read it yourself and make your own decision, but it was quite obvious that he was trying to prevent me from closing the door.”
That transcript, posted on IPSO’s website, reads
3.21: Sound of door opening
Reporter: Hi, Mr Latif?
FL: Yes.
Reporter: Hi, I’m XXXXXXXX from the Sunday Times. I’m sorry to bother you
FL: XXXXXXXX?
Reporter: XXXXXXXX, from the Sunday Times.
FL: I really don’t want to talk to you.
Reporter: I’m really sorry – I’ve got –
FL: Can you not, can you not hold the door please.
(Simultaneously): Reporter: Apologies. I need – all right – FL: Piss off.
3.33: Sound of door closing.
iMediaEthics has written to the Times to ask if it typically records interview attempts made at people’s homes. iMediaEthics asked IPSO if it would release the audio as well as the transcript, but the IPSO spokesperson said via email, “It’s not our policy to release the evidence we use separately to the ruling so it will just be the transcript.”
